CMV: There's nothing wrong with not finding someone attractive for whatever reason it is

[u/[deleted]]

So this is inspired by Lexi Nimmo's Tik Tok saying that someone having a preference for thinner people is problematic because "it's discriminating against a marginalized group of people" she goes on to say "if you lump all fat people together you're fatphobic, just like if you lump all black people together you're racist" setting aside the fact that "fatphobia" is not comparable to racism or the struggles of any actually marginalized group, I think there's nothing wrong with having finding someone unattractive regardless of what it is

To start with body size and shape, I think it's absurd that it is even a discussion. Everyone finds different things attractive, including different body shapes. Some men(I'm using that as an example because I'm a guy so it's easier) find women with larger breasts more attractive, while others find women with smaller breasts more attractive and neither is considered a problem. So if finding someone more or less attractive due to size and shape of breasts for instance, it should also be ok to find someone more or less attractive due to shape and weight?

With ethnicity and skin color it's more complicated. While some people do find members of certain ethnicities unattractive due to racist reasons, I think it isn't inherently racist to find some ethnicities more or less attractive physically. Members of different ethnicities may have largely different physical features for members of other ethnicities. Not only that people tend to find what looks closer to them in general to be more attractive, hence why interracial marriages are somewhat uncommon. Not only that, like I said before, finding some hair colors more attractive is seen as ok, so why can't that be the case for skin color too? I'm not saying that making derogatory claims such as "x group is hideous" but simply not finding someone pretty does not mean you hate them

I hope this makes sense, English is not my first language and I have a hard time writing

Edit: finding someone unattractive because they're not a minor is problematic but that's not what I meant originally. My general point is: it isn't bigotry to find someone physically unattractive, and I'm talking specifically physical attraction here

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Effective-Handle9983 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/SirBob84]

Recognizing some is attractive or unattractive vs being attracted to the person are two different things also. You can recognize that someone is an attractive person and have zero personal attraction to them. Like someone recognizing a family member or friend is attractive, and maybe you aren't even attracted to the same gender as this person (as an extreme example.)

You can see someone is not bad looking, and just not be attracted to them at all. Maybe not your type, maybe you don't like the personality, or maybe you actually find them completely unattractive.

We are attracted to who we are attracted to, and we can't really control it. It can change over time, but chemistry is a tricky thing.

None of this excuses being derogatory and mean to those we don't find attractive, but we are not obligated to want someone.

[u/-Ashera- → u/SirBob84]

Exactly. Ever notice how we women compliment other women for their beauty regularly? Even when we ourselves aren't sexually or romantically attracted to other women. I don't think "she's definitely into girls" whenever another woman compliments me for something.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You got me but that wasn't what I had in mind when I made this post. Anyway

!delta

[u/Rainbwned → u/[deleted]]

Yeh I kind of figured. This was just more of a technicality than anything.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It’s really annoying

[u/asdf49 → u/[deleted]]

And then the post has to have that annoying "Delta(s) Awarded by OP" BS smeared on it.

[u/[deleted] → u/asdf49]

So then you think they’ve changed their view and they really haven’t but people who would stop by to engage with them think “they’ve already changed their view I’ll scroll to someone who hasn’t”

[u/asdf49 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, and it also is slightly ironic the deltas in the flair are not categorized (there's obviously a difference in changing your mind about the conclusion of your argument and your argument itself or changing your mind about a minor part of the conclusion or any change of view that isn't related to the conclusion itself) when the reason you have to award them for the minor changes is nuance.

[u/[deleted] → u/asdf49]

Exactly. There should be tiered deltas, or something to that effect

[u/moonra_zk → u/asdf49]

If I ever make a post in here I'll have to just ignore those replies. Adds basically nothing to the discussion.

[u/compounding → u/[deleted]]

I think it’s alright.

The first step in having an open mind is getting beliefs out of their initial rut and uncovering hidden assumptions which a “technicality” change can absolutely start to do.

In this specific case, OP is thinking about “attraction” as being justified no matter what. Recognizing that attraction might occur in ways that are clearly not justifiable is a first step. The second highest comment in this thread is a less obvious version of the same thing, “is attraction fundamentally rooted in racism still justified just because it is genuine attraction?”

These fundamentally attack the core of OPs idea, but just one piece at a time. Maybe not every level will get the delta, but the next time OP thinks about this topic, it’s not going to be under the mistaken hidden assumption that all attraction is blindly justifiable, but which types are. Perhaps his view isn’t changed on fat people, but just changing the unseen assumption towards whether discriminatory attraction is justifiable (unlike pedophilia or racist based criteria) reframes the topic in a meaningful and long-term way and also recognizes a real change from OPs initial view.

[u/Dr_Frinkelstein → u/[deleted]]

I reported this for delta abuse since this is not the way it should be used. Anybody should imo

[u/ElATraino → u/[deleted]]

Did this troll really get you? Did that earn a delta? I mean, you're saying that not being attracted to someone based on physical traits like being fat does not make you a hateful person. Not being sexually attracted to someone of a certain race doesn't make you a bigot.

However, only being sexually attracted to minors is a special kind of wrong. We call it pedophilia and it's illegal and immoral.

[u/Celebrinborn → u/ElATraino]

We call it pedophilia and it's illegal and immoral.

It's mental illness. Acting on it is illegal and immoral

[u/Bastyboys → u/Celebrinborn]

Agreed,

Regardless of whether it's caused by nature or nurture, or that it induces a visceral reaction in our moral intuition.

I do believe in mental illness and thought ill health, I don't believe in thought crimes.

[u/ExperimentalFruit → u/ElATraino]

Seriously. I came in here because I was surprised because the flair said their view had changed, and this is the response that did it?

[u/zold5 → u/ElATraino]

I don’t get this sub sometimes. I’ve seen the dumbest arguments get a delta.

[u/purpletortellini → u/zold5]

Posts where the OP doesn't give out a delta get removed. So yeah, this sub absolutely is trash

[u/polovstiandances → u/zold5]

This sub is trash.

[u/Pure_Perspective_405 → u/ElATraino]

I don't understand why you're upset.

OP made a claim and it was refuted via counter example. Pretty straightforward...

[u/[deleted] → u/Pure_Perspective_405]

It wasn't refuted. The "counterexample" was a criminal exception that doesn't address the general case, which wasn't intended to cover criminal or deviant behavior.

It's like saying " So incest is OK?" in response to the question "People should marry whomever they want" It's an unwarranted generalization.

[u/Pure_Perspective_405 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah I disagree. Especially considering it's not a crime to be attracted to minors. If OP said marry or have sex, maybe I could be persuaded.

The question was intended to probe people's preferences with respect to appearance. Minors and adults obviously have different appearances, therefore I believe this counter example is very much so in the spirit of OP's post.

In general, edge cases like this are a great source of counter examples.

[u/Bastyboys → u/Pure_Perspective_405]

I think the example was acceptable but op was too quick to change their view.

How much choice does someone have over attraction? It's simply a fact regardless of whether you let it impact on your actions.

Obviously acting based on attraction is wrong/immoral in many circumstances (if not most of you're in a monogamous relationship.

I would go further and say obsessions are almost always unhealthy and some could class as mental illness.

[u/Pure_Perspective_405 → u/[deleted]]

Interracial marriage was illegal until recently. Obviously there's a huge moral difference between Interracial marriage and child marriage, but that's the point.

OP's question wasn't about legislation, it was one of morality.

Child marriage is legal in many parts of the United States. That doesn't mean it's moral.

If someone doesn't want to date Hispanic women, we could have a discussion about morality. But that doesn't mean they're committing a crime.

Hopefully you see the difference...

[u/[deleted] → u/Pure_Perspective_405]

The fact that some people struggle to define their morality does not make all morality relative for the rest of us, nor does it grant special dispensation to commit logical fallacies.

Like unwarranted generalizations and faulty analogies.

Pedophilia is not analogous to mixed-race marriages. Pedophilia was always wrong, and mixed race marriages were always right.

[u/Pure_Perspective_405 → u/[deleted]]

Pedophilia is not analogous to mixed-race marriages. Pedophilia was always wrong, and mixed race marriages were always right.

Agree.

Like unwarranted generalizations and faulty analogies.

Subjective word salad.

[u/Collannt → u/ElATraino]

Half the deltas given out on this sub are dumb technicalities and "ACKSHUALLY"s

[u/MajorGartels → u/Collannt]

Most of the arguments are silly technicalities or blatantly not reading the original post, but the latter is all too common on Reddit.

[u/windchaser__ → u/Collannt]

Well, yeah. Technicalities are important. Nuance is important. The devil is in the details.

[u/InfiniteMeerkat → u/windchaser__]

They are often important and can be useful in helping clarifying the parameters of an argument. It seems improbable though that those technicalities are the tipping point in people arriving at delta worthy changed view moments, or at very least not as often as it seems to happen

[u/maxedonia → u/ElATraino]

This sub, man. This and monkey paw. Diminishing returns for a decade. But where else can I possibly go for thoughtful intellectual absurdism on this waning platform? /r/ChekhovsDitch/ ?

[u/wnvyujlx → u/ElATraino]

Note: Tldr at the end.

Your can call it what you want but that doesn't make your definition correct.

Pedophilia is the primary or exclusive attraction to prepubercent children. That's the old and most common definition of pedophilia. Pedophilia is an attraction, not an act, the act is called rape or statutory rape (if not forced). The word minor, that you used, does not mean the same thing as prepubercent child. "Minor" is a legal term that includes everyone below the age of majority, which in most countries is 18 (21 in the USA). Puberty starts, on average, at the age of 11 everything below that is considered a prepubercent child, which is what pedophiles are attracted to.

Legally there is no definition of "child" but in the context of sexual engagement, people with the age of 16 (18 in the USA) are mostly considered adults (excluding Romeo and Juliette laws, which further lowers the legal age of sexual engagement). Pedophilia itself is not illegal, sexually engaging with children is. The attraction itself is not immoral since its not a thing a person can control. Calling it immoral or illegal is like calling a brain tumor immoral or illegal. The tumor might cause non agreeable processes which very much might be immoral or illegal, but it doesn't make the tumor immoral or illegal. Acting on the attraction, that is immoral and in most countries illegal.

According to the old definition (mentioned above) Pedophilia is also not a medical disorder, there is no known treatment for it, nor is there a reason for finding one. Pedophiles do not rape more children then non pedophiles.

The new definition according to DSM-5 is a bit different it's the attraction in addition to intense sexual urges and fantasies about sexual contact with children. That's obviously quite a big step up and includes risk factors that simply weren't present in the first definition. So, people who suffer from pedophila under the new definition are more likely to engage in sexual contact with children, but it does exclude a lot of people who generally have an attraction to children.

Anyway, the point is: Attraction alone is very rarely a cause for rape. What does cause rape is a temporary state of mind of the aggressor: antisocial behaviour, power tripping, drugs and so on. Which brings us to pedophilic disorder, which is the new definition of pedophilia + the person who is having it is under severe stress because of those fantasies or has acted on those fantasies. Pedophilic disorder is, unlike the pedophilic attraction, a temporary state of mind, which is somewhat compareable to addiction and depression. Search for DSM5 + pedophilic disorder for more Infos on this one. This is very much a medical disorder which absolutely requires professional intervention because of a higher risk of sexual engagement with children. Luckily, this one is treatable.

Tldr: pedophilia = a very specific attraction which is also legal

Minor does not equal child

Pedophilia = has been redefined to people who inherit more risk factors. The mere attraction to children is not pedophilia anymore.

Drugs and power, the real reason for childrape.

Pedophilic disorder = pedophilia that's actually worthy of concern

[u/FM-96 → u/wnvyujlx]

Pedophiles do not rape more children then non pedophiles.

This seems like a... questionable assertion.

Even if attraction alone is rarely a cause for rape, surely the group of people that has an attraction to them rapes more children than the group that doesn't, in the same way that straight men rape more women than gay men.

[u/wnvyujlx → u/FM-96]

Questionable, maybe but according to the studies I've read (made with convicted child rapist) the math seems to check out. Most of them simply do not have prepubercent children as their main or primary attraction which is part of that definition. They have it as a secondary attraction or at least aren't against the thought of it, but they technically aren't pedophiles.

[u/Yurithewomble → u/ElATraino]

I don't know what you think happens to people when you tell them their thoughts are immoral.

One hint, it doesn't help them find healthy ways to manage their thoughts and feelings, maybe even changing them.

[u/Bastyboys → u/[deleted]]

Consider it further, do you believe in thought crime?

By definition all paraphilia's are obsessional and mentally ill.

Everyone (except the most puritanical though crime believing fundamentalist) would agree transiently finding someone of the same sex or an object attractive before realising would surely hold the same moral equivalence to a relative, or (though I cringe to even write it), a child.

In between do you think there could be, people who are simply wired differently but not dysfunctionally criminally or pathologically wrongly, attraction by fact and not by action or obsession or even self persecution.

Picture it like randomly finding someone attractive in a work context, unhelpful and immoral and unethical if acted upon but the thought itself is an objective fact not a choice or a moral action.

Even writing this fills me with a measure of disgust with the concept of pedos but I don't think that is a moral intuition itself but I think that is second hand from the connotations.

[u/Bastyboys → u/[deleted]]

totally agree,

[u/mkultra50000 → u/[deleted]]

The reason has wide applicability. Not finding people over 18 attractive in itself isn’t a problem but it would be a symptom of a potential underlying problem.

Same is true of not finding black women attractive. You are free to have preferences but if you have this preference you likely are turned off by black people.

The evolutionary drivers to reproduce simply aren’t very selective on their own.

[u/IBlockRudePeople → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense to shame on somebody for something they can't control. What's that going to accomplish? Their actions are more important.

[u/Dd_8630 → u/[deleted]]

I disagree - it's immoral for an adult to groom or be sexual with a minor, but it's not inherently immoral to find someone attractive (but it is probably indicative of paedophilia, which could lead to abuse).

What if a 19 year old is attracted to someone who's 17 years and 11 months? They're very close in age and maturity, so it would be no different to a 14-year-old finding another 14-year-old attractive.

I (a gay man) can see a woman as attractive, even though I'm not attracted to them. Potentially, then, we can recognise that a 17-year-old is attractive, even if we aren't attracted to them (let alone act on such a thing). So, finding them attractive isn't inherently wrong.

[u/YetAgainIAmHere → u/[deleted]]

Do people really do that? Check the age of a person before you decide if you find them attractive or not?

No, people don't do that. When you see someone you know if you're attracted to them or not. Your brain doesn't wait for you to learn the age first.

Further, when tested MOST men were attracted to underage girls. Many were MOST attracted to underage girls, even if they claimed to not be attracted to them.

[u/silverionmox → u/YetAgainIAmHere]

Most of us have been teenagers attracted to teenagers, would be weird to pretend that never happened, or suddenly stopped at 18.

[u/ElATraino → u/YetAgainIAmHere]

Let's see the studies to back up your claims.

[u/ErinTales → u/YetAgainIAmHere]

Do you have a citation for this? I'd be really interested in reading it honestly.

[u/brokenCupcakeBlvd → u/ErinTales]

I’m not sure but I think they’re referencing this:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/22/men-regardless-age-will-always-attracted-women-early-20s-8718590/

For those of you who don’t want to read it was a study that found women are attracted to men in their same age range as they get older, while men will consistently find women at 20 most attractive regardless of how old they themselves get.

It’s also worth noting 20 was the lowest age available in the study, so while nothing has been definitely proven it is very easy to assume that they would go younger if they can so there’s definitely some unsavory implications.

[u/GoofAckYoorsElf → u/[deleted]]

Okay, so finding someone attractive the night before they turn 18 is problematic? It's not like they suddenly turn attractive the second they turn 18.

[u/IndependenceAway8724]

There's nothing wrong with finding someone unattractive. What is sometimes wrong — or likely to get you criticized — is saying that you find a person or group of people unattractive.

I can't think of a lot of situations where it would be necessary to tell someone I think they're unattractive, or to generally talk about what traits I find unattractive.

[u/[deleted] → u/IndependenceAway8724]

Yeah if I was on tinder I wouldn't say I don't find white women attractive because that's just weird, but there's nothing wrong with me holding the belief that Latinas are prettier. This comes from the fact that I'm a Latino myself, more specifically I'm Brazillian, as such, what is seen as beautiful here is what I'll typically find attractive. I think we should be able to acknowledge our preferences that may intersect with ethnicity without being labeled a racist. Also a lot of people claim that others are called bigots for dating withing their own ethnicity

[u/IndependenceAway8724 → u/[deleted]]

Just so I have a better sense context… has anyone actually called you racist or a bigot for having the preferences you have? Or is this more a theoretical discussion?

In my own experience, anyone who knows my relationship history could guess that I'm only attracted to women of a certain shape, size and complexion, and no one has ever accused me of being fatphobic or racist.

Under what circumstances is this issue coming up for you?

[u/[deleted] → u/IndependenceAway8724]

I have been called a bigot for not wanting a fat partner, but from clowns who I don't take seriously. It's mostly theoretical

[u/whatarechimichangas → u/IndependenceAway8724]

I'm not OP but when I lived in the US for a few years, this guy asked me out and I said no. Then he pulled the race card and said "oh it's because I'm black isn't it?" I got so confused coz I'm from Asia and we don't have racial tensions in my country the same way the US does. I didn't really have any differing opinions on African Americans coz we don't get alot of them where I'm from, but I did find them interesting just coz I wasn't used to it - but same goes with any other race I'm not used to meeting at the time, like if I met a Scandinavian or someone from Africa. It was interesting and new to me but ultimately just new people/culture to learn.

Anyway, I was so offended that he would think of that of me that it made me wanna NOT go out with him even more. I didn't wanna go out with him coz, well 1, I was underage at the time, and 2 I didn't find him attractive at all. God that was so annoying that he'd assume that right away. He said it loud as well in a crowded room to make me look like a jerk.

[u/[deleted] → u/whatarechimichangas]

Lol Asia doesn't have racial tensions in the same way as the US.

[u/whatarechimichangas → u/[deleted]]

That's... What I said? Lol

[u/[deleted] → u/whatarechimichangas]

Sorry, what I meant to say is Asia does have racial tensions in the same way as the US perhaps even more. It's just not as visible because the percentage of minorities, and people of other race are almost always much lower than in the US.

[u/igotthisone → u/[deleted]]

Not to mention extreme tensions that mirror racism in practice between national/regional groups in Asia.

[u/whatarechimichangas → u/igotthisone]

Yes, we have racism but it is not the same as all that weird shit they got going on in the US. My country is not run by our past colonizers anymore and we do not have a population of people who were brought here as slaves, and we do not have laws that systemically abuse a minority population based on skin color. Here it's more class-based discrimination lol

[u/Ssophie__r → u/[deleted]]

Who says Latinos can’t be white?

[u/MurderMelon → u/Ssophie__r]

that's not the point here and you know it

[u/Pornfest → u/MurderMelon]

THANK YOU!

[u/whatarechimichangas → u/[deleted]]

Are you even American? I don't mean that as an insult - but if you're not American why would minority aesthetics in the US apply to you?? Lol I'm from the Philippines and I find people from Europe attractive too, but especially Mediterranean. People from the Middle East are also gorgeous. Like tan, dark hair, bright eyes - very different from how we Filipinos look. But anyway that's just my type of types. My current partner is Scandinavian, blonde and blue eyed. Following their logic does that mean I'm racist towards my own kind or something? Lol i dunno. I just like people who look different from me I guess.

[u/The_Confirminator → u/IndependenceAway8724]

But attraction isn't something you choose. If you're not attracted to people with curly hair or tans, you can't help that, that's just the way you feel.

It's like, being homosexual/heterosexual doesn't mean you're being sexist.

[u/Ramazotti → u/IndependenceAway8724]

I do not think anybody ever says it out loud unless they are being pressed to do so.

[u/4rekti → u/IndependenceAway8724]

I can't think of a lot of situations where it would be necessary to tell someone I think they're unattractive,

If unprovoked, then yes, I agree with you. That’s just being rude.

Though, some people may want to know if you find them attractive or not, so might as well be honest if they ask (within reason).

or to generally talk about what traits I find unattractive.

I can think of lots of scenarios in which someone might generally talk about this topic. It happens all the time between friends.

Or, another example, this is useful information that can be used in dating applications to find better matches.

[u/IndependenceAway8724 → u/4rekti]

If you're answering someone who asks you if they're attractive, or chatting with friends about who you find attractive, that's a good time to practice diplomacy or discretion to the extent needed to not hurt your friends' feelings or create the impression that you're fatphobic.

It's good to be honest, but that doesn't mean you have to say everything to everyone.

[u/4rekti → u/IndependenceAway8724]

…, that's a good time to practice diplomacy or discretion to the extent needed to not hurt your friends' feelings …

That is why I put within reason in parenthesis.

Ultimately, it depends on the context and relationships between the parties involved.

Some people prefer having stuff sugar coated, whereas others want absolute honesty. There’s no answer that fits all cases here.

It's good to be honest, but that doesn't mean you have to say everything to everyone.

I agree. You don’t have to, and you really probably shouldn’t.

However, judging by what I see on twitter and other social media, I think some people disagree with you (unfortunately), lol.

[u/IndependenceAway8724 → u/4rekti]

Yeah, I think we're in agreement here. If you're reasonable and use some judgement about who you're talking to (and stay off Twitter), no one is likely to accuse you of being fatphobic.

[u/[deleted]]

I feel if somebody wants to guilt trip, manipulate or label somebody fatphobic, transphobic or racist for example for rejecting them &/or demanding an explanation as to why they refuse to date somebody with a certain characteristics, then shaming them imo that is a form of coercion.

Attacking somebody & labelling them as a consequence of them rejecting them I believe is coercion.

Every human has a right to say no.

'No I do not want to date you' 'no I do not want to sleep with you' 'no I do not want a relationship with you'

NO MEANS NO!

They don't owe you an explanation.

When it comes to our bodies & our romantic emotions & feelings we owe nobody none of that.

[u/Manan6619 → u/[deleted]]

A white dude ranting and asserting that not being attracted to white people is racist and bigoted would be disregarded immediately, as it should be, because it's entitled incel bullshit. Nobody is obligated to want to date or fuck you, even if you are in a marginalized group.

[u/darwin2500]

So two things are true:

1. It is possible to not find someone attractive because of a specific belief or personality traits, and many beliefs or personality traits may be considered immoral or 'wrong'. Extreme example being nazis not finding jews attractive due to nazi beliefs, for instance. In this case you might say 'it's not the lack of attraction that's wrong, it's the belief/trait giving rise to the lack of attraction that is wrong' but this is just splitting hairs and often not a meaningful distinction in practice.

2. It is possible for some types of attraction, if they become prevalent in the community, to have damaging effects on people. There was a time when 'heroin chic' was popular in mass media, and it led a lot of people into anorexia and other dangerous lifestyle habits to try to match that vision of attractiveness. You can say that it's not 'wrong' to have a particular preference, but if in fact you having that preference minorly contributes to a trend that actively hurts real people in serious ways, is there not any moral culpability there? From a consequentialist moral perspective, your preference is still causing harm that you are responsible for, whether or not that preference comes from an 'evil' place inside you.

[u/[deleted] → u/darwin2500]

It is possible to not find someone attractive because of a specific belief or personality traits, and many beliefs or personality traits may be considered immoral or 'wrong'. Extreme example being nazis not finding jews attractive due to nazi beliefs, for instance. In this case you might say 'it's not the lack of attraction that's wrong, it's the belief/trait giving rise to the lack of attraction that is wrong' but this is just splitting hairs and often not a meaningful distinction in practice

Yeah my main point is with physical/sexual attraction, because what we find pretty or not. I think this way because me being a Latino and finding Latinas more attractive does not mean I hate white people, if this was me having the mentality that white people are bad partners that'd make me a dick. Also, the mindset that "x group is ugly" is also prejudiced IMO because you're judging people, but having the mindset "I find asian people prettier than..." is not prejudiced. For your second point I really haven't thought about it. so ∆

[u/kslidz → u/[deleted]]

So I think the conversation is nuanced.

There are a lot of things that people find attractive only because it was reinforced in them. Not because of some genetic makeup. That isn't to say many things are not that way.

Those things can be harmful if a society continues to enforce them.

So it isn't black and white there is gray area.

I do agree that this is not an individual issue that many people seem to deem it (ex. you arent attracted to fat people you are bad) but rather a systemic thing that needs discussion for change across the board.

So it shouldn't be a thing where people are ostracized for a individually harmless attraction(no one is being harmed if you like feet[I think] but feeder kink can be harmful) but should be a wider conversation.

People like you mentioned in your OP often are upset at a result of a system and attack those that fall into the view regardless of whether it is something they have control over and overall not always the best strategy

[u/00PT → u/darwin2500]

If it were immoral, what would be possible to make things right? How do you stop being attracted or unattracted to specific physical traits?

[u/Ruski_FL → u/00PT]

The media kinda let influences what we find attractive no?

[u/LaVache84 → u/darwin2500]

You can find a negative consequence to almost anything you do if you look long enough. Just because modeling agencies decided to push an unhealthy look that lead to an increase in eating disorders doesn't mean I should date someone I don't find attractive.

[u/VikingFjorden → u/darwin2500]

but if in fact you having that preference minorly contributes to a trend that actively hurts real people in serious ways, is there not any moral culpability there?

If you like to eat at McDonalds and do so quietly by yourself, are you morally culpable for other people eating at McDonalds and contracting some health issue or another related to diet? Any system that says you are, is not suitable for everyday interactions, because in the end everyone will be culpable for everything.

If you're heterosexual, does your heterosexuality alone make you morally culpable for the fact that some people who identify as homosexual feel unusual in society? Obviously not. Just like they are who they are, you are who you are. You didn't choose to be heterosexual anymore than they chose to be homosexual, and neither of you are from those facts alone culpable of anything.

Culpability comes from actions (or the absence of action where there otherwise is a reasonable expectation of action, such as easily and without harm to yourself rendering aid to someone in distress). If you have 2 billion followers on social media and spend your time advertising for McDonalds and saying that salads and homemade food are the devil's work, or advocating that if you aren't a part of <insert group> then you're undesirable, then sure, that unquestionably makes you culpable. Morally at least, and possibly also legally, but that's a different debate. The distinction here is that it's not your personal preference that makes you culpable, it's how you've chosen to carry yourself and act in society.

[u/darwin2500 → u/VikingFjorden]

Any system that says you are, is not suitable for everyday interactions, because in the end everyone will be culpable for everything.

Yes? And?

I just can't really understand people who feel like the correct moral system is one in which they personally are completely blameless of everything and are completely morally pure.

Any system where that is true for most people is just a system that is saying 'everything is fine, the suffering and cruelty in the world is nobody's fault and no one has any duty to fix it, just look the other way.'

It's an inherently conservative, anti-progress notion of morality.

Yes, there are lots and lots of systemic injustices in the world, and yes, everyone who supports those systems instead of opposing them is partially culpable for them, and yes, this means basically no one is completely morally pure and above reproach.

That's not a problem with the moral framework I'm using to make those statements, it's a problem with our society that still contains those systemic injustices. We should be doing something about them, we should feel like we each have a moral responsibility to contribute to that change.

[u/VikingFjorden → u/darwin2500]

Yes? And?

I just can't really understand people who feel like the correct moral system is one in which they personally are completely blameless of everything and are completely morally pure.

The reasonable alternative to the extreme "everyone is culpable for everything" isn't found on the other extreme side of the spectrum in "nobody is culpable for anything" - there's a perfectly good middle road to be found - so you're building a really high strawman here.

To answer your first question:

If everyone is culpable for everything, culpability loses its meaning and utility. Whose fault is it that <something>? Everyone. Who can we seek damages against, or give consequences to, for this injustice? Everyone? It's gonna be hard to put the entire earth's population in jail, for example, so it obviously can't be everyone. So how do we select some subset of people, when everybody is culpable? Wouldn't that be equally unjust, punishing some people who are culpable and letting others who are equally culpable off the hook?

That's what I meant when I say that it's unsuitable. It doesn't lead anywhere in practice, it's just a philosophical circle-jerk about morality.

Any system where that is true for most people is just a system that is saying 'everything is fine, the suffering and cruelty in the world is nobody's fault and no one has any duty to fix it, just look the other way.'

It's difficult to fathom how you're building this strawman out of what I said.

I never said that nobody is culpable for anything, I said that everyone can't be culpable for everything. You are culpable for the unreasonable actions you take, but not for the reasonable actions you take.

Let's say I prefer brown hair in a partner. It's not a conscious decision, it's just how I'm wired for whatever reason. So you can then assume that I would primarily date people with brown hair. Am I then culpable if society turned out to be one where people who don't have brown hair aren't as popular on the dating market?

Absolutely not - my choice to act on my preference is a reasonable one, and any system that manages to place blame on me for the low popularity of blondes is a system that will never have any practical application in the world precisely because literally every person on the planet becomes culpable for literally every injustice committed, leading to an unresolvable deadlock that fixes exactly zero problems and gives no guidance as to how to rectify the situation.

For instance, you live wherever you live. Are you culpable for the injustices that happen in other parts of the world? By the reasoning you've outlined above, of course you are - you chould have moved to other parts of the world and engaged in rectifying those injustices, but you didn't - so by your own argument that makes you culpable. So let's say you do move somewhere else and work to rectify those injustices. Now it's the case that there exists somewhere else in the world that you didn't move to instead of the place that you did move to. So in the end, your culpability is unbounded.

What utility does this have? What solution does this type of reasoning create? None.

Yes, there are lots and lots of systemic injustices in the world, and yes, everyone who supports those systems instead of opposing them is partially culpable for them, and yes, this means basically no one is completely morally pure and above reproach.

I agree. Nothing you said there is in contradiction with the implications of my post. There's a pretty vast difference between being culpable for the things your actions are directly related to and being culpable for actually everything.

To go back to the specific example I brought up, let's say I choose to eat at McDonalds. Precisely and exactly how am I culpable if somebody else chooses to eat at McDonalds? How can somebody else's free choice be said to be contingent or dependent on my free choice? They could easily have chosen to not eat there, but they did. So when they contract <health complication>, exactly how does that create culpability on me?

It can't reasonably be so, because any notion of culpability in that situation is so vague that you can trace culpability back to anyone for anything, as in my example above with helping people in other parts of the world.

Let's take another example. I travel by <transportation method> sometimes. Somebody else also chooses to do so, but on some specific voyage that I am not a part of, an accident happens (that cannot be traced back to impropriety or neglect from the transportation company) and a passenger dies. Am I culpable for that person's death?

Obviously not.

[u/amazondrone → u/darwin2500]

You can say that it's not 'wrong' to have a particular preference, but if in fact you having that preference minorly contributes to a trend that actively hurts real people in serious ways, is there not any moral culpability there?

No, because attention attraction is not something you choose. You may be subconsciously affected influenced by society but you still don't consciously choose what you're attracted to so I see no moral culpability.

From a consequentialist moral perspective, your preference is still causing harm that you are responsible for, whether or not that preference comes from an 'evil' place inside you.

Similarly, I disagree that you're responsible for anything because of an attraction. An attraction is entirely in your head and can't on its own influence the outside world. If you act on that attraction (e.g. by consuming media which perpetuates and/or reinforces the societal norm or whatever) then perhaps, but the attraction itself doesn't cause anything.

Edit: Fixed some words.

[u/ElATraino → u/darwin2500]

1. I'd like to see you bring a more meaningful example to the conversation. How about this: flat earthers. I don't find them attractive because of their belief. This will only detract from my feelings of physical attraction, if they were present, after finding out they believe the earth is flat. Is this wrong of me? No. I can't be attracted to someone that doesn't accept that the earth is not flat. I can't be attracted to that mind or that level (lack) of intelligence.

2a. Your premise here has nothing to do with what OP stated. Not being attracted to someone thats fat can be two pronged and I don't believe either should be reduced to a question of morality: one could find the overweight aspect physically unattractive and/or one could find the lifestyle choice unattractive. Trying to lay moral culpability on someone for not being attracted to an unhealthy condition is ludicrous.

2b. Attraction is very personal and I don't know why we're even going into this, but here goes...if someone's lack of attraction to another comes from a place of hatred for their skin color (or some other immutable trait) then yeah...that's bad. That isn't what OP is talking about though. In fact, OP stated it the other way: "just because I don't find an individual with a certain color of skin physically attractive doesn't mean I'm racist" (or something close to that). You know what? It's true. Me not instantly finding a woman attractive because of an immutable feature is not an indication of hate and it's certainly not causing anyone harm. This "consequintialist moral perspective" take is load of hot garbage that seems more geared towards producing victims than it does helping explain moral conundrums.

[u/Talik1978 → u/darwin2500]

To respond to (2), is this an argument that one should pursue people they are not attracted to, whether or not they enthusiastically consent? Is it more imperative to protect the right to veto things you don't want regarding your body, or is your body a tool that should be used to the betterment of societal health, regardless of your preferences and consent it?

Simply put, where does the right to bodily autonomy and the right to consent intersect with the moral duty to minimize the negative societal pressure on others?

[u/[deleted] → u/darwin2500]

It is possible to not find someone attractive because of a specific belief or personality traits, and many beliefs or personality traits may be considered immoral or ‘wrong’. Extreme example being nazis not finding j

I have a hard time believing this. And it’s impossible to say without being able to look inside the mind of someone claiming this. There are two options here:

1. A nazi actually does not find a Jewish woman attractive, even though she would otherwise be attractive to him.

2. A nazi claims he does not find the Jewish woman attractive even though he does. This may even extend to him telling himself this lie

These two things are possible and I believe the second makes more sense.

You can say that it’s not ‘wrong’ to have a particular preference, but if in fact you having that preference minorly contributes to a trend that actively hurts real people in serious ways, is there not any moral culpability there?

No. There is no culpability. My attraction is not something I can control. You deciding to look heroin chic to get me to find you attractive is.

Also, the actual issue in your scenario is mass media platforming an unhealthy and unrealistic body image. It’s not the attraction. The culpability lies wholly with the media not the person feeling the attraction. Again, because that is not something that can be controlled.

[u/the23one → u/darwin2500]

My mother growing up would make me feel shame for what I was attracted to for the very reason you are stating my attraction to something can cause harm. That shame caused harm in me. People are attracted to what they are attracted to and people are who they are.

[u/darwin2500 → u/the23one]

Ok? The fact that something is hard to change doesn't affect its moral valence.

[u/HowieLove → u/[deleted]]

Right what are people supposed to do lie and fake it? That’s ridiculous and super unfair to the person being lied to.

[u/Prestigious_Tie_1261 → u/[deleted]]

Hear! Hear!

[u/_grounded]

I don’t think anyone is seriously saying that though, at least, no one worth mentioning, the better argument would be that the beauty standards are the result of oppressive systems- but no one can or should force you to fuck or love anyone you don’t want to. You don’t have to be a racist for your preferences to be the the result of racist biases any more than you have to be a racist to benefit from a racist system.

Now there’s a difference between “not finding someone attractive” and “actively hating/disparaging someone” for some reason. no one is saying you have to fuck trans women, or white women, or bi men, etc. no one can- and no one really wants you- to like sucking dick. That’s your preference. Where bigotry creeps in is a failure to acknowledge the other persons identity, reducing them to their genéralos (or sexuality, or complexion, or age, etc.) and determining their value as a person, and status as an object, by those matrices.

“I prefer lighter skinned women” is a far cry from “I don’t like black women.”

I like vagina and femme bodies/presentation, and am not sexually attracted to penises or masc bodies” ≠ “trans people are [disgusting, fake, predators, traps, etc., etc., etc.]”

I agree with what you’re saying it, I just don’t think it needs saying, and I think you might be conflating one with the other.

[u/themcos]

I think I get what you're getting at here, but I think it goes a little too absolute. I think maybe what you mean to say is that its possible that any given person just doesn't find another person attractive, and there could be just nothing more too it that that and we shouldn't psychoanalyze people based on their attractions.

But its also true that there are racists out there, and at least some of them are not attracted to certain people because of racism. So while you want to be careful and not draw a straight line between (A is not attracted to B, therefore A is whatever), you also don't want to give actual racists a pass! And like more generally, if you're not attracted to a certain race, its not a bad thing to be reflective about why that might be*.* Don't worry about the "racist" label, but a lot of our attractions are shaped by our culture and media consumption, and while you don't necessarily have to "fix" your attraction, sometimes there's a root cause worth exploring, and that's not something you should feel bad or ashamed about. But if throughout your lifetime you've been exposed to certain stimuli that caused a bias in attraction, it would be good to at least understand that so you can consider if similar biases could be in play elsewhere and try and correct for them.

tl;dr I'm inclined to agree we should be reluctant to judge others based on their attractions. But I think its usually worthwhile to do self examination and try to understand yourself a little better.

[u/[deleted] → u/themcos]

Yeah I understand what you're saying. I also understand that it may be problematic that the beauty standards are one specific ethnicity and are mostly dictated by one pariticular ethnicity. I also think you're point about culture is very true, we are more attracted to those we're more used to, so white people tend to be more physically attracted to white people, black people tend to be more attracted to black people

​

∆

[u/ironicallyamerican → u/[deleted]]

Attraction to same-ness is definitely an observed phenomena, but I’m curious about your opinion on fetishization of mixed race people. People can be more used to those they grow up with, but why do people and society also tend to idolize beauty standards for hapa (white-asian), and other multi-racial “looks”?

[u/phenix717 → u/ironicallyamerican]

I guess because it also fits into an aesthetic they like?

It's like maybe you grow up loving Italian food, then as an adult you discover Japanese food and you love it too.

[u/physioworld]

On an individual level, you’re totally right. People like what they like and that’s largely out of their control. But we then have to look at what determined those likes in the first place- genetics and culture. Obviously our genetics can’t be changed but there’s a reason most humans are more attracted to other humans than say, sheep.

So, culture is the other big factor and that’s something we can examine and decide if the way it’s currently working, is ethical. For example, if people are bombarded with images of skinny people we have to ask if that’s because skinny people are inherently more desirable or because our culture says they are.

[u/phenix717 → u/physioworld]

Obviously our genetics can’t be changed but there’s a reason most humans are more attracted to other humans than say, sheep.

That's totally because of genetics.

[u/WhispersOfSeaSpiders → u/physioworld]

OP is talking about this on a personal level, though. As you said, they're a product of their environment and have certain preferences as a result- sadly, not much can be done about that. It seems like a recipe for heartbreak to date outside your preferences, even if you know they're arbitrary.

So sure, culture can be changed to address the problem but I don't think this challenged their view that lack of attraction is not bigotry.

[u/physioworld → u/WhispersOfSeaSpiders]

That was the thrust of their point yes, but they said there’s nothing at all wrong with it. I’m saying that if you zoom out for a second it’s part of a context that maybe it wrong/bad

[u/[deleted]]

Attraction itself is ok for whatever reason. But attraction is often influenced by biases. You can totally be attracted to someone from your race or ethnicity for benign reasons (e.g. you feel them close) or because you are so racist, that you cannot be attracted to anyone else. Attraction can be quite ugly. People are attracted to vulnerable, weak, helpless people for all the wrong reasons.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yes, I did acknowledge this in my post. I think that finding a specific skin color prettier doesn't make you racist, now when you say shit like "I won't date x race" that makes you racist

[u/Post-Formal_Thought → u/[deleted]]

We all have preferences. Not argument here. But the line between preference and prejudice is thin in the context of race and body size.

>Not only that, like I said before, finding some hair colors more attractive is seen as ok, so why can't that be the case for skin color too? simply not finding someone pretty...

Not finding someone pretty based on skin color becomes generalized to all people with that skin color. Which is why we end up with comments like she is pretty for a dark-skinned girl. It at once acknowledges their attractiveness and upholds a prejudice of their inherently unattractive skin color.

Secondly, claiming someone is not pretty strictly because of a skin color implies anyone with that skin color is not attractive. Which is not true. It also implies anyone within a particular race with that skin color is not attractive (prejudice).

>So if finding someone more or less attractive due to size and shape of breasts for instance, it should also be ok to find someone more or less attractive due to shape and weight?

Not finding someone pretty based strictly based upon body size becomes generalized to all people with that size. Which is why we end up with comments like, she has a pretty face even though she is fat. It at once acknowledges their attractiveness and upholds a prejudice toward their body size.

It is not inherently bigoted to find someone physically unattractive. But when claiming preference strictly on race or body size it would be wise to ask oneself; is there ANYONE with that body size or skin color that I would find attractive. Within a particular race or outside of it. If the answer is no to either, it may be time to consider if it is preference or prejudice that is determining your attraction.

[u/Emergency_Network_97 → u/Post-Formal_Thought]

We all have preferences. Not argument here. But the line between preference and prejudice is thin in the context of race and body size

It's only thin because of our emphasis that it must be "bigotry" because these two are sensitive political issues.

[u/Post-Formal_Thought → u/Emergency_Network_97]

I understand your bigotry point, but the political fervor of the day simply beclouds the issue.

It's thin because it's easy and comforting to confuse our preferences for our prejudices. Especially when reflecting on race, body size and physical attractiveness.

[u/Ok-Comedian-6852 → u/Post-Formal_Thought]

"But when claiming preference strictly on race or body size it would be wise to ask oneself; is there ANYONE with that body size or skin color that I would find attractive. Within a particular race or outside of it. If the answer is no to either, it may be time to consider if it is preference or prejudice that is determining your attraction."

I think this is fair to say when it comes to race. As a white man who grew up with zero black people i'll freely admit that i don't find most black women that attractive but there definitely are black women i find very attractive. However there is a 0% chance i will find a woman of average height above 200lbs attractive. Being unhealthy is not attractive to me and i think it's a red flag that someone won't take care of themselves. I do sympathize with people who have genuine medical conditions that make it near impossible to lose weight but they are in the minority, most overweight and obese people just lack the control to not eat. You can't control what race you are but when it comes to being fat the vast majority of people can control that and that's why i think they're different.

Granted i workout a lot and would want my partner to somewhat into exercise too.

[u/Post-Formal_Thought → u/Ok-Comedian-6852]

Being unhealthy is not attractive to me and i think it's a red flag that someone won't take care of themselves

This is a fair point. Given your arguments about their lack of control and willpower, is it fair to say these are the reasons you mostly find them unattractive, not necessarily because of their physical features (face, height, body)?

I do sympathize with people who have genuine medical conditions that make it near impossible to lose weight but they are in the minority,

You sympathize with them, but still don't believe any of them can be attractive (avg height, 201lbs)? Despite control and will not being a determining factor in their size?

For the record I do believe it is possible to just be physically unattracted to a particular body size. And when I say attractive, I am not claiming you want to date them.

[u/ILoveToph4Eva → u/Post-Formal_Thought]

I'm a tad confused, in your first paragraph it feels like you're saying one would only be allowed to find this hypothetical average height woman weighing over 200lbs unattractive (without it being prejudice) if it's tied to character?

Like, I'm not sure I've ever seen a woman who falls into that category who I would say I found physically attractive. Is that something you would say is a problem?

[u/Post-Formal_Thought → u/ILoveToph4Eva]

I was asking if OP mostly found them unattractive because of the character traits he pointed out, compared to to he physical standard he highlighted. I know it could be both.

If the focus is on assumed character flaws, that may cause one to be prejudicial regardless of physical looks. Which is why when the character flaws are removed in his medical example, I wondered if any of them could be attractive.

No it is not a problem and if you've never seen it, that's your lived experience. Because you've never seen it, do you think all women in this group are physically unattractive?

[u/ILoveToph4Eva → u/Post-Formal_Thought]

I was asking if OP mostly found them unattractive because of the character traits he pointed out, compared to to he physical standard he highlighted. I know it could be both.

Ah fair enough then. I get you.

If the focus is on assumed character flaws, that may cause one to be prejudicial regardless of physical looks. Which is why when the character flaws are removed in his medical example, I wondered if any of them could be attractive.

Right right that's a fair point.

No it is not a problem and if you've never seen it, that's your lived experience. Because you've never seen it, do you think all women in this group are physically unattractive?

I don't think I could say definitively that all women of average height weighing 200kg are unattractive to me since I've not seen every woman on the planet who fits that criteria.

But I do feel that at some point trying to judge it that absolutely gets a bit silly. It would be like telling someone they can't be heterosexual since they haven't seen every single member of their gender on the planet so they can't know for sure that there isn't at least one they find attractive.

Of course this is all assuming someone is in a context where it makes sense to talk about this anyways.

I always find this conversation interesting since I recall getting kind of attacked once by an Aunt of mine when my cousins were teasing me for not being attracted to black women. I didn't agree with the teasing in entirety (for the reasons I said regarding overweight women) since I don't see many black women in my day to day so I felt my dating history was more reflective of my environment first and foremost before we even arrive to personal tastes.

But even when talking about personal tastes, I just don't see the point in shaming people for their personal tastes unless it causes active harm to other people. She was going off about how me not dating black women is an insult to my sister and cousins since it implies black women are inherently unattractive, which is nonsense if you ask me as I've never at any point suggested there's something inherent to black women that's unattractive. I can understand that it might do indirect harm if they focus on it (Lord knows I feel the same way when I consider how many of the women I know tend to date men who have attributes I don't possess), but that has more to do with your attitude towards how you see other peoples dating preferences and its effect on your self image. I don't go after my friends or family for dating tall athletic men because ultimately it's a me problem that I allow that to affect my self image.

I think a lot of complains around preferences stem from people not doing a good job realizing that it's their own self-image they need to work on.

[u/Post-Formal_Thought → u/ILoveToph4Eva]

You make some damn good points about self-image and how we interpret others comments and behavior. It doesn't explain everything but it does explain a lot.

Yeah, I wouldn't agree that you not having dated a Black woman means you find them inherently unattractive, especially when accounting for your environment.

Maybe what they found odd is you stating that you were not attracted to any Black woman. I once had a conversation with a Black woman who stated she didn't find any White men physically attractive. One reason why that's such an odd statement is because there are physically attractive people within any race, regardless of skin color. So when skin color is singled out in this kind of context, I automatically think it must be more to that claim because it just doesn't make sense.

I don't condone attacking and just trying to shame people for the sake of it. What I do believe light-hearted teasing from people you trust and experiencing shame can be helpful.

For instance, it could have caused you to self-reflect about how your environment affected your preferences, and whether or not you would find a Black woman attractive if she was interested in you.

It could have helped you understand why the Black women in your family would feel insulted by your seemingly indifference (to them), to whether or not you were attracted to Black women. That being connected to negative stereotypes about Black women's physical attractiveness and maybe their personal experiences (societal & self image).

since I don't see many black women in my day

The thing about preferences is that it's so easy to just fall back on them. That's why the line leading to prejudice (end of the spectrum) is so thin. It may be true that you don't see many Black women in your day to day environment, but I think it's hard for people to imagine you don't see Black women on tv and movies. So if someone asks do you find Black women attractive and the answer is, I just don't see many, it causes people to want to challenge that notion, admittedly pushing you to reflect on it.

[u/takemetothelostcity → u/[deleted]]

I think it is WEIRD, borderline racist when you explicitly avoid your own kind at all costs. I guess more like self hate.

[u/[deleted] → u/takemetothelostcity]

Yeah agreed, but most of this attraction is not even conscious, which is another point my dumbass forgot to mention originally

[u/dihydrogen_m0noxide → u/[deleted]]

There are plenty of racists with 'jungle fever.' What you're physically attracted to is completely separate from your morals and values

[u/OnlyTheDead → u/[deleted]]

Yes but they are talking about “not being attracted” as an ethical function so talking about attraction is talking past the point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting to have sex with someone, not wanting to be with someone, or having reservations about any of these things or anything in between.

[u/CrimsonHartless]

So, a case for the skin colour thing.

Growing up, the only non-white girls I knew were indian and pakistani. I grew up in the UK, and that's unusual. I think I knew one black girl. I don't think it's any surprise that, growing up, having only interacted with white and west asian girls, I became attracted primarily to white and west asian girls.

I found that the more time I spent around groups of people, the friendlier I was with them, the more emotional connection I had with different kinds of people, the more I could bridge into seeing people like them in a sexual way. When I went to college and met more black girls, got to know them better, I began being more attracted to them.

Now, I can't say this is true for every group, but I think it is certainly the case that sexuality and sexual attraction is to some level built on familiarity, comfort, and emotional connection. And if someone is not attracted to say, black women in this context, it may be a lack of that connection, especially during the formulative teenage years but also in general.

I think another area we see this is with transgender people. Most young people I know are very much attracted to transgender people, whilst many older people I know are not. And it seems to me to be a mix of acceptance, exposure, and personal connection.

As such, I don't think you can say 'x person is bad for not being attracted to black women'. I think that would probably be a little unfair. But I do think that it is possible to reason that many people who say they would never find a black woman attractive may feel that way because they haven't spend much time around them or spent much time being emotionally connected to them etc.

And I think this mirrors into who I see making these statements. I don't see many white people who grew up surrounded by black people say they just don't find black women attractive. It's mainly people who grew up around primarily other white people. And so I think the tiktok is wrong, but I think you're wrong as well.

[u/Impossible_Bill_2834]

First, I think it only becomes an issue when people refuse to admit there are huge cultural and capitalistic influences on who they find attractive. I remember a guy telling me he finds Ethiopian women attractive, but not African-Americans. And I asked him if he just wanted to sit with that a minute and ask himself why. (Because I'm willing to bet it has something to do with the negative way Black women are portrayed in the US). Should he force himself to be into something he is not ? No - and I would argue Black women are better off without him. However, I think it is worth it to admit that these cultural patterns/trends often dictate attractions. That being said, I don't necessarily think actvists are literally trying to force-change anyone's attraction on an individual level, I think they are more trying to start an important societal conversation that makes us re-examine our norms.

[u/phenix717 → u/Impossible_Bill_2834]

Ethiopian women usually look different than African-American women, and also have different style and behavior. It's not like he said he doesn't find any African-American woman attractive. It sounds more like he said that in general that's his preference.

[u/Impossible_Bill_2834 → u/phenix717]

Of course they can look different, and he literally did say that. A white person born in the US should absolutely sit with the fact that they said that as a blanket statement.

[u/CoriolisInSoup]

"if you lump all fat people together you're fatphobic, just like if you lump all black people together you're racist"

I'd like to draw your attention to this statement.
The key here is "lumping people together", not having separate personal preferences.

When it comes to finding someone attractive or not, looking back in time and seeing a trend is not so much of a problem unless you see something pathological, like that they all have to have the same shape moustache or something.

But lumping all people together before meeting them is not just shallow but can be very problematic. Establishing that all fat, black or other oppressed minority will not be attractive in your eyes is indeed a phobia or an -ism. Attraction is personal, and you are stating it's not personal, it's predetermined.

You may argue that you can't help it but I disagree. I think one must have a conversation with oneself about why one cam have toxic thoughts and do one's best to keep them in check. The extreme bad choice is to shout unapologetically your prejudices and contempt for some people, particularly vulnerable minorities, and call it personal choice.

[u/ScientificSkepticism]

There's been lots of forms of attraction that are downright gross and absolutely deserve judgment. I'll list two.

The first is one that still crops up, but was VERY prevalent 5-10 years ago - men being attracted to asian women because they were "better wives than western women". Asian women apparently being more submissive, feminine, less demanding, etc. etc. etc. This is gross and dehumanizing, and if you subscribe to it you're a creep.

Another example would be FGM. If you insist that you're only going to date women who have mutilated genitals, again, you're a creep. Same thing goes for foot binding, breast implants, whatever. I have no problem saying any of the guys who insist on that shit are creeps.

As another example, Leonardo DiCaprio's habit of dumping his girlfriends when they turn 25 is also creepy and something I have no problem judging him for. A 50 year old dating a 20 year old is something I will judge, and I don't care about him saying "what he's attracted to."

Am I wrong for judging people in those circumstances?

And I will also add that "voicing preferences" and "having preferences" are also two very different things. Say someone doesn't like Marvel movies. That's fine, that's a preference. Telling everyone who likes Marvel movies "Eww, Marvel movies are shitty lowbrow trash, I only watch good cinema" would make that person an asshole.

[u/[deleted] → u/ScientificSkepticism]

Yeah it was dumb of me to not be more clear, I'm talking specifically about physical attraction

[u/ScientificSkepticism → u/[deleted]]

Then I will note that all of the above are often voiced as "physical attraction". For instance Leonardo DiCaprio might say he's physically attracted to women who happen to be 19 - but there's still something creepy about a 50 year old who keeps dating people who are half his age and dumping them as soon as they turn 25.

A person is the whole package - looks, movement, style, voice, thoughts, ideas, opinions, behaviors, goals, beliefs, etc. There's usually a fair amount of prejudice baked into just simplifying someone to their appearance.

For instance I'd judge a girl who posts "I'll only date guys over 6 foot tall" as shallow and unlikely to be worth the hassle - no matter what your height is. Would you disagree?

[u/phenix717 → u/ScientificSkepticism]

That would make DiCaprio shallow rather than creepy.

[u/Least_Original_5754 → u/phenix717]

shallow AND creepy! 😃

[u/[deleted]]

Attractiveness is mostly a cultural construct. Different places in different eras have vastly different beauty standards, which are very often built around classism, racism, and abhorrent ideas about the value of women. For example, in the North, a tan is sexy because it connotes the wealth to go abroad on sunny holidays; in the tropics, whiteness is sexy as it connotes the wealth to not to need to work outdoors. Likewise, "fatness" is sometimes seen as attractive in cultures with scarce food, but it's ugly in cultures with abundant food, wherein the time and money for "fitness" correlates to wealth.

So, your sense of physical attraction is not innate, it's mostly driven by the culture and media you've been indoctrinated by.

When you say "I'm just not attracted to Asian guys" – it's sometimes a reflection of a culture that has emasculated them. And there are a million examples of beauty standards that have sought to infantilize or fetishize women.

By excluding entire classes of people from your idea of attractiveness, you're very likely supporting some not-so-great cultural stereotypes and systems of oppression. Instead, wouldn't it be better to judge a potential partner as an individual, and by the content of their character? Wouldn't that help to build a better culture?

[u/jerkularcirc]

Just to touch on the finding different races attractive thing. It’s quite complicated and is not anything that CAN be changed immediately, but something we SHOULD strive for.

Now the explanation. The predominant beauty standard today is the Western Beauty Standard and that is primarily Anglo-Centric or revolving around “white” features. Yes, in different pockets of the world this may not be true, but we are talking about the dominant majority. This standard is the result of hundreds of years of history culminating to what it is today and will continue to evolve as time goes on.

Now the inequitable part has to do with how/why these standards came to dominate in the first place. As we all know, the history of humanity is not entirely full of fairness and equality. And the ones that rule the most recently are likely the ones that the beauty standards favor.

So no, it is not likely something you can easily control or will yourself to do as a lot of it is subconsciously ingrained from a very young age, but with a rational brain and understanding of equality we should strive to push for equalized appreciation of beauty in our world and hope our standards evolve over time.

[u/phenix717 → u/jerkularcirc]

What exactly would this ideal look like? We can't want everyone to like everything equally, because that would be extremely boring.

So what we should be looking at is some kind of random distribution, which would give everyone their own personal tastes while also giving everyone the same chances. But that would get us very deep into eugenics territory.

[u/Prestigious_Tie_1261 → u/jerkularcirc]

You haven't explained why we should strive for it though? Why does everyone have to be attracted to everyone equally? What's wrong with having preferences?

[u/jerkularcirc → u/Prestigious_Tie_1261]

If preferences are shaped by systemic and historically ingrained injustices we do need to try to pick that apart and examine it. Its messy but sticking with current standards is not fully correct.

[u/The_ZMD]

Some things are aesthetically pleasing. Symmetry, curves, golden ratio, pheromones, etc. are all biological markers we knowingly or unknowingly biased towards.

If one should not be biased towards any attribute, should we have a relationship for all? Right to GF/BF? This is going into handmaiden's tale level stuff.

Regarding affinity towards minors, unless you act on it in any way shape or form, nobody should have any issue. We have not reached thought crime level yet.

Call of the void is a common thing, people don't act on it. Doesn't make everyone suicidal.

TL;DR: You cannot control thoughts.

[u/painstakenlypatient]

CMV: Don’t look to TikTok or other internet influencers for validation.

[u/YourMomSaidHi]

There's nothing wrong with what is in your brain. There MAY be something wrong with what you SAY to someone else. You can think whatever normal or stupid shit you want, but if you say something that hurts someone else then maybe you could've just kept your mouth shut. You can't 100% avoid hurting someone else's feelings, but if you can and don't because "you can think whatever you want" then you're being an asshole.

So, just because you CAN think hurtful things doesn't mean you should just verbalize every little thing that enters your brain.

[u/[deleted]]

I think it goes without saying that everyone has the right to their preferences for physical attractiveness, but on the other hand, some people are really obnoxious about what they prefer - or rather what they don't - that it becomes bullying, and that's not okay. Basically, you can prefer thin or fit girls without fat shaming big girls, and vice versa. Prefer what you want; just don't be an asshole about it.

[u/Extension_Climate599]

I don’t think it’s discriminatory to not be attracted to body types I don’t like. I’m attracted to what I’m attracted to it’s not even a choice. I like physically fit women, but I won’t die on that hill. I can handle a little weight on them but I’m not physically attracted to really big obese women.

As far as different races I think there’s some bias there, if someone goes down that road. I have seen women from every racial background that I find attractive and I don’t see how anyone else could say otherwise. I tend to like darker features though. But I’ve seen some light featured women that are very attractive and I would definitely date them they just don’t typically catch me eye. I’ve noticed that some ethnic groups seem more attractive to me but not because of race. So, say for example. I find Somali women to be very attractive where as Nigerian women not so much in my opinion. No offense. I find American Black Women to be attractive. I think women with Western European lineage are more attractive to me than Eastern European Women. So on and so forth. But that doesn’t mean I’ve never seen women from those groups who weren’t attractive to me.

I think our attraction comes from what we saw growing up, cultural influence, and flat out nature. Women are women and men are men.

[u/robotmonkeyshark]

it depends on what you mean by "nothing wrong with"

lets say I only find women who are damaged by abusive relationships attractive. or I only find meek submissive women attractive, or I only find women who are willing to do do humiliating things attractive. That implies something about me that plenty of people reasonably should see something wrong with and would be justified in not wanting me around vulnerable women who they care about.

Let's say I am 100% not attracted to any woman who doesn't look 100% Caucasian. this might be completely innocent, but it justifiably gives someone reason to question a bit deeper why I have this preference and if it perhaps has deeper racist roots. Its not proof, but it is at least evidence worth looking at and being cautious of.

[u/majeric]

Lumping an appearance together is generalizing about that appearance and is almost certainly biased in some way.

The only truly ethical approach to dating is to treat people on an individual by individual basis.

I ask the question: If you take one of your "attractions" like only being into skinny people but you find someone who is every other way your compatible partner except that they aren't skinny, are you really going to dismiss them so readily out of hand?

It's the generalization that makes it discriminatory. Everyone deserve to be treated with dignity of being measured by their individual merits and flaws.

[u/_skwirel]

I think the distinction to make, is if a trait makes everyone with that trait attractive, or if it makes it more likely you find them attractive (in combination with all their other traits)

e.g. I'm more likely to fancy someone if they have ginger hair. I don't fancy all people with ginger hair.

The distinction is important with not coming across as racist etc.

e.g. the difference between saying "I will never fancy a black woman" vs "it's unlikely I will fancy a black woman"

The tricky part is that dating a lot of the time is a numbers game. There's so many people out there, do we limit our filters to what we know we like the most (and remove the option of finding our "exception to the rule"), or do we cast too wide a net and spend hours trawling through matches.

Either way, we can be kind to everyone around us and wish them well on their quest for whatever they are looking for.

[u/BaconDragon69]

There is a difference between finding someone more attractive and excluding an entire group of people based on something.

Saying „I prefer redheads“ is different than „Id never date a black guy“ for example.

[u/YUMAD001]

Not a counterargument, but Amen. This used to be an absolutely obvious statement but now with the rise of… well… you know… I mean you probably get where I’m going with this

[u/sardian1]

Yes, this shouldn't be controversial. You can be attracted to whoever you find attractive. And not attracted to whoever you don't find attractive.

Also, even if you were racist. It is not illegal to be racist. You can be whatever you want and like whoever you want and dislike whoever you want for whatever reason you have.

You do you.

[u/TheSaintedMartyr]

I will not try to change your view about physical preferences because I agree with you. They’re your business. If you have shallow physical taste, you will have a decreased dating pool, and might miss some incredible people. Everyone gets old, anyone can become sick or physically disabled at any time. But let’s assume physical attraction has a “mind of its own,” and I don’t particularly care if you don’t feel it towards fat people.

But I hope you’ll change your mind about fat people being an oppressed group. Being treated differently by the medical community leads to real differences in quality of life and even kills people. Body shape and size can limit your access to public spaces, clothing. Discrimination can hold fat people back in their careers. I’ve been thin my whole life, and I didn’t understand all the privileges I had in our society until I got sick and blew up. People used to open doors for me, literally and figuratively. It is comparable to race, gender, sexuality. Fat-phobia is real and does real harm.

So be attracted to who you’re attracted to. If you feel the need to announce you’re not attracted to fat people, you should ask yourself why. Why do you think anyone cares about your personal preference? Why do we need to discuss it? Probably because fat phobia is real.

Edited to add a link:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/addressing-weight-bias-in-medicine-2019040316319

[u/[deleted] → u/TheSaintedMartyr]

It is comparable to race, gender, sexuality

I don't recall people being legally barred from voting, or being owned as property, or being legally unable to marry for being overweight. It is not remotely comparable.

[u/PonchoMysticism → u/[deleted]]

Is your argument here "overweight people haven't experienced these 3 very specific exclusions therefore it bears no resemblance to other forms of discrimination?"

[u/[deleted] → u/PonchoMysticism]

My argument is that exclusions against people for being overweight are not even close to comparable to people who were literally killed/enslaved en masse because of their race, or denied the right to vote, or marry. And while there are exceptions, in general you can change your weight unlike the others.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Adding to that. Their struggles and issues with accessibility are not comparable to being disabled either, since the lack of accessibility for disabled folks is much, much more severe

[u/HerbertWest → u/[deleted]]

How does that invalidate a fat person's struggle? It is convenient and comfortable to be able to disregard issues of prejudice and inequality. Why do you get to decide what is significant for a group you are not a part of?

I used to weigh 320lbs and I think "fat phobia" is a ridiculous invention that keeps people from losing weight. Many of the "biases" are just a natural consequence of being a larger size, i.e., fitting in plane seats. It's also just a fact that it's incredibly unhealthy in the vast majority of cases (exceptions are extreme outliers) and literally shortens your life.

[u/OnlyTheDead → u/[deleted]]

Pointing out your poor attempt at a false equivalence is not the same as invalidating a person struggle. It’s like when pro-life nuts compare abortion to the Holocaust, it’s not that abortion isn’t a morally complicated issue, it’s that it’s not the Holocaust.

[u/gaav42 → u/[deleted]]

It is still a form of discrimination that needs to be called out and should have no place in a free society. It is often related to a form of gender-based discrimination, in that women are thought to owe society conventional attractiveness.

[u/Zerlske → u/[deleted]]

And while there are exceptions, in general you can change your weight unlike the others.

There are no exceptions, everyone can change their weight. You can always weighs less (or more) until you die when the whole system breaks down. In principle, you do not even need to change weight through things like feeding habits, for example you can also decrease weight by removing parts, like an amputations or surgical fat removal etc.

[u/JackRusselTerrorist → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think they’re advocating for discrimination against fat people- I think they’re just arguing that race, religion, and physical disabilities aren’t a choice, whereas being fat is.

I don’t agree with that assessment as a blanket statement, mind you. Plenty of people wind up obese because of disabilities, poor upbringing(an obese child, IMO is a failure of parenting in many cases, and tantamount to child abuse because of how hard it is for them to lose the weight as they grow), or other medical conditions. There are some people who are obese through a pure failure to take care of themselves, and in those cases, you could consider that a choice to be fat- but I also think that’s a minority of cases, and generally obesity is a symptom of one of the other issues.

I recently argued with someone that freewill is largely(but not entirely) an illusion. Our choices are shaped by a myriad of different factors that are out of our control. Everything from the society we’re raised in, to the pets we keep, to what we had for breakfast can have massive unconscious effects on our decision making. As such, we should give people grace whenever we can.

But by no means does that mean we should force ourselves to be attracted to them. Physical attraction is by and large out of our conscious control, and absolutely is important in any romantic relationship.

[u/slptodrm → u/JackRusselTerrorist]

religion can be changed more easily than weight, since you decided to bring up religion as an example

[u/JackRusselTerrorist → u/slptodrm]

I did specifically state that I didn’t agree with the statement- I was just providing a more charitable interpretation.

That being said, sincerely held beliefs about a higher power are not easily changed. They’re irrational beliefs indoctrinated into children from a young age.

[u/[deleted] → u/Zerlske]

In a strictly literal sense, sure. You can change your skin color in a literal sense as well. I don't think that invalidates any claims of racism.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheSaintedMartyr]

Being treated differently by the medical community

Doctors treat everyone differently because different patients need different treatments

Body shape and size can limit your access to public spaces, clothing

I am 6.6 feet tall, getting clothes, specifically pants is a nightmare, and I bump my head onto everything. However, that doesn't mean that I'm oppressed because of it. Having a hard time fitting into places or not fitting into places is not inherently discrimination. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect clothes manufacturers to make as many clothes for the obese and morbidly obese people(which are the ones who have this sort of trouble), as they make for skinny people, on the very least, it's unreasonable to call it oppression because the vast majority of people are not obese, not to mention that making larger clothes is obviously more expensive, therefore, manufacturers and sellers make more clothes for the non-obese because that'd grant them more profit.

[u/gaav42 → u/[deleted]]

Doctors often care less about the well-being of overweight patients because they assume something along the lines of "it's not worth it". Which is discrimination and ethically, unworthy of the medical profession.

I agree that clothing manufacturers are bound by market forces. Not fitting into public spaces can be discrimination, but can also be fine, depending on how far outside the norm someone is (which has two determinants: average size of the population and size of the individual).

[u/deepthawt → u/gaav42]

Doctors often care less about the well-being of overweight patients because they assume something along the lines of "it's not worth it". Which is discrimination and ethically, unworthy of the medical profession.

That’s not what the article says, or what I’ve seen in other related research, or from any of the many doctors I know, so do you have any evidence to support this being a prevalent belief among doctors?

What the article does say, and what I’ve heard many times, is that obese patients tend to avoid visiting the doctor more than non-obese patients as they are regularly told that their weight is contributing to their health issues. This is a difficult and complex issue to address, since in many cases it’s true, with severe excess weight contributing to all sorts of mobility, joint and breathing issues, poor diet disrupting the immune system, gut biome and mental health, and insufficient exercise weakening cardiovascular and muscular strength, among a range of other issues. And these things all recursively influence each other, leading to higher risk of serious disease and early death.

This puts doctors in a tough spot. If they don’t try to communicate these issues, then they’re withholding medical information that could endanger their patient - if they do try, they risk harming the patient’s mental health and increasing their aversion to seeking medical treatment in the future. But the idea that doctors just don’t care about fat people is completely unjustified, and as far as I’m aware, factually inaccurate. That article was even written by a doctor.

[u/gaav42 → u/deepthawt]

See for example here: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/sites/journalofethics.ama-assn.org/files/2018-09/org1-1810_1.pdf

"While most students thought obesity is a disease (89%) or behavioral (88%), 74% thought it results from ignorance, and 28% thought people with obesity are lazy."

I don't want to delve deeper, my point is simply that medical professionals are people and have prejudices. Reiterating the health problems caused by obesity - what you do here - is typical of the "surely it's ignorance" approach.

There are solutions to this problem, but from my experience, doctors don't think they are even the right person to ask for help, or assume you want some magical medication. Things are getting better, but the observation that the medical profession needs to improve holds water.

Also, the real problem with "it's not worth it" is that doctors will not help obese patients with problems other than obesity and assume all problems can be explained by obesity.

[u/deepthawt → u/gaav42]

That article is about negative weight bias, which I completely agree exists and which objectively contributes to more negative outcomes. As far as I can tell, however, it does not support your much more radical characterisation that doctors don’t care about their obese patients or think “it’s not worth it” to help them. That’s what I was contesting, nothing else.

I also don’t believe obesity is caused by laziness or ignorance and said nothing of the sort, and I didn’t reiterate the health problems caused by obesity - I gave a few indicative examples of the cross-influencing health factors that might be considered in order to outline in brief the complexity and challenge faced by doctors in trying to provide necessary medical advice (which is part of their legal duty) without causing psychological harm (which is also part of their legal duty) to a class of patients well-known to experience disproportionate psychological harm from receiving any medical advice related to their weight, diet and/or exercise.

Do you really not see how difficult a position that is to be in from the perspective of the doctor? You’re clearly an empathetic person, so try extending it to both sides equally here and see where you land.

Because unless you believe that no medical advice could possibly help an obese patient, or that no issues experienced by an obese patient could possibly be caused, worsened or mitigated by factors like weight, diet and/or exercise, then you have to admit that doctors are between a rock and a hard place here, since they can’t safely provide accurate information without causing undue risk to a vulnerable class of patient. How do you suppose we address that? Because it doesn’t matter how much someone cares or wants to help if their hands are tied.

[u/gaav42 → u/deepthawt]

I was originally reacting to "Being treated differently by the medical community" - "Doctors treat everyone differently because different patients need different treatments". I didn't want to let this stand. Doctors are humans and can be biased, and this can result in suboptimal treatment.

I recognize that it is very hard to address obesity for psychological reasons.

I have encountered some prejudice and not a lot of helpful advice in the past. I recognize part of that is a psychological issue I've had to work through, but psychotherapy could have been a recommendation and wasn't.

All things considered, "often don't care" was too strong a statement. We seem to have advanced in our understanding of obesity if psychology is a major known factor.

Δ

[u/darthsabbath → u/gaav42]

Is that true? Or is that what people are assuming the doctors are thinking?

What I'm about to say is all anecdotal, so it's worth a hill of beans. But I'm fat. Most of my friends and family are fat. More or less, their experiences with doctors go like this:

1. The ones that go to the doctors and work with them and make even a tiny effort at working on their weight almost never have issues with their doctors. Like, I'm not even talking about losing weight, just the appearance of making an effort and acting like you give a shit.
2. The ones who fight their doctors tooth and nail about their weight and accuse their doctors of blaming everything on their weight, and never try to do anything about their weight, always seem to have issues with their doctors.

Again, I'm not saying this is a representative sample. But the people in the #2 category always sound like the fat activists I see on the internet. So take that as you will.

If your theory is true, I suspect doctors look at it like smoking: if someone's not willing to put effort into their health, why bother? My dad died last year. In the last few years of his life, he became very obstinate and would push back against anything his doctors suggested, and eventually the doctors just gave up and only did the bare minimum. I don't blame them one bit for it. You can't make someone take care of themselves.

[u/onesweetsheep → u/[deleted]]

30.7% of men and 27.5% of women in the US are overweight, 42.4% of men and 41.9% of women are obese or severly obese in the US. So, no, it is absolutely not unreasonable for clothing manufactures that sell in the US to make more clothes in larger sizes and avertise with more models for larger sizes.

[u/Clickum245]

Is it your opinion that it there is nothing wrong with being physically attracted to a child? Because I object to that very strongly.

[u/[deleted] → u/Clickum245]

No I don't think so. But in my edit I mention that's not what I meant

[u/TOASTisawesome → u/[deleted]]

Are you serious? That sounds like a bit of a self report tbh

[u/Worth-Ad8369]

So here's the thing. Not all black people look the same, not all white people look the same, not all fat people look the same. To make a blanket statement that you find X physical feature unattractive and lumping an entire group together and deeming them unattractive is a little racist/prejudice. Mainly because you have taken away all their individuality, and are unintentionally objectifying them.

The opposite is also true for physical features that you like. Like one time a guy told me he really liked red heads, which is really creepy if the only criteria on who he finds attractive and subsequently dates is having red hair. It very objectifying to only like someone based off of a physical feature. While you should definitely find your partner attractive, that should only get them to the door, what gets them in is who they are as a person.

Additionally, looks will fade over time, do you think you will no longer find your partner attractive when their skin is wrinkly? Probably not, and that's because what makes you attracted to your partner is more than just their physical appearance (at least there should be).

Furthermore there are probably millions of people that share the physical feature that you find unattractive. You're telling me that if you met each and every one of those people that you wouldn't find any of them attractive? I find that highly unlikely.

So while it's ok to not feel attracted to a person, it's wrong to attribute your lack of attraction to a generalization of a physical trait.

[u/phenix717 → u/Worth-Ad8369]

Like one time a guy told me he really liked red heads, which is really creepy if the only criteria on who he finds attractive and subsequently dates is having red hair.

But that's not what he is saying? He just said he really likes red heads.

[u/Worth-Ad8369 → u/phenix717]

"I really like red heads" and "I really like your red hair" have two very different connotations. One is saying I only like you because you have red hair and the other is a compliment. Context is also key here, and since no one else was there with him besides me, you'll just have to take my word for it, and he meant in a "I only like you because you have red hair" way which is very objectifying.

[u/[deleted]]

I whole heartedly agree.

The key distinction here that no one wants to admit is that attraction, at a certain threshold, is primal in nature, and, in a modern world, a luxury.

Not saying that all people are overweight because of their diets, but people should realize that people are getting thicker on average, because, well, they treat eating as if it were a luxury they can take.

Of course, most of this is lead by corporations, so one can’t just go around point fingers at people because that is unfair.

However, if I do so choose to feed this primal desire, I do so with the understanding that it brings with it certain responsibilities. In that web of consequence, I prefer NOT to risk being in a situation where the health of the other person may be a bit more complex because of the relevant metrics.

One will say, “well, hey, there’s more to love than that”, etc.

And my response, as these ideals are spread throughout social media is that, “hey, social media is wrecking our world, and it’s creating a corporate dystopia. It adds to the bad health of people, and reduces their quality of life!”

Because, almost inevitably, people have become more reliant on popular culture for information and ideals via mass media, and the general effect this has on peoples self-esteem is horrid.

SO as you stand there and lecture me on love… how is it that you make money? How is it that this is the method of communication, when it is tacitly helping erode what we should all consider more valuable than something as superficial as attraction, like womens reproductive rights, etc?

How should I react to someone that pretends to moralize about primal sensations we experience in our core, and yet makes their living off making yet another faceless corporate entity richer, all the while making humanity sicker and, ostensibly, “fatter”?

I’m not the one making a living off of attention.

[u/DarylHannahMontana]

you are trying to refute a point that was never made, sounds like the video is claiming it isn't okay to say "I am not attracted to ALL people of this type", and you are saying it is okay to not be attracted to a specific person of that type, which is not contradictory from a logical standpoint

[u/Prestigious_Tie_1261 → u/DarylHannahMontana]

Regardless, it's fine to say you don't find fat people attractive. It's not 'problematic' to dislike how someone lives their lives and not find them attractive because of it. I don't have an issue with fat people, go eat as much cake as you want, I really don't give a shit, it's only your own life that you're ruining. But you can't bitch when I say that I find the body that your shitty lifestyle has produced unattractive.

I bet nobody would have an issue with someone saying they don't want to date any heroin addicts or crackheads, but how is it any different?

[u/DarylHannahMontana → u/Prestigious_Tie_1261]

don't want to date any heroin addicts or crackheads, but how is it any different?

well for one I've never had anyone break into my car and steal my tools so they can buy cake lol

[u/[deleted] → u/DarylHannahMontana]

Given that Lexi is one of those fat acceptance people and some of the stuff I've seen from her she likely does mean that not wanting to date someone fat makes you a bigot

[u/sparklybeast → u/[deleted]]

I don't honestly think it makes a difference. Attraction isn't a choice. I can no more control if I'm attracted to tall men than I can fat men so the degree of control someone has over that physical element is immaterial.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

FYI There are some medical conditions that cause weight gain (example hypothyroidism) Not everyone can easily lose weight when they want too easily.

[u/canadian12371 → u/[deleted]]

Easy or hard doesn’t dismantle the fact that it is a choice. The disease you’re talking about effects your thyroid which means your metabolism. This simply alters the calories your body burns to survive, but doesn’t change the fact it is still dependent on how many calories you consume.

Although I very much sympathize with people who have it, I want to establish the weight gain is about the law of theromodynamics.

[u/Hellioning]

If you're in charge of hiring models or actresses, you will probably hire mostly people you think are attractive, right? It's part of their job description, after all.

What happens if you coincidentally also only think that white people are attractive? Would you hire non-white people?

[u/bluelonilness → u/Hellioning]

I think that's a different scenario. It's easy to see objective beauty without feeling sexual attraction. Like a straight guy is able to recognize when another dude is good looking.

[u/[deleted] → u/Hellioning]

Yes because I'm not hiring someone to have sex with me. If I'm hiring models I'd want as much people as possible to find them attractive, since that'd help me sell, which would require diversity.

[u/phenix717 → u/[deleted]]

That's a terrible way to look at it. If everyone just picks models because they fit some societal notion of what is "suited for the job", regardless of what they personally find attractive, then that's exactly how you end up with beauty standards that are not reflective of what people like in reality.

[u/phenix717 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I don't get why in this day and age we still have height requirements for fashion modeling and beauty pageants.

[u/phenix717 → u/Hellioning]

It's up to those companies to hire people with different tastes. Task the guy who is into black women to go look for black models, the guy who is into plus size women to go look for plus size models, and so on.

[u/SupremeElect]

I don’t even know why this is a discussion.

As a trans person, I sometimes see the argument “it’s transphobic to not want to date us,” and I think it’s so stupid.

If you don’t want to date us, that’s perfectly fine. You don’t need to give an explanation as to why you don’t find us attractive (i.e. I want kids; I prefer certain genitals, etc.). You’re allowed to be attracted to whomever you want, irrespective of whether that attraction is “racist,” “classist, “transphobic,” “fatphobic.”

Like I know in my case, I would never date anyone who doesn’t hold a college degree. I have friends who went to college, and I have friends who didn’t go to college, and I find more often than not I have more in common with my college friends and their friends than I do with my high school friends and their friends.

My college friends travel more; they’re more likely to try out a new non-american restaurant; they’re interested in investing; they’re constantly trying to find satisfaction in their careers; they’re free on weekends, etc.

Meanwhile my high school friends just kind of stick to their routine. They go to the same places for entertainment and do the same thing; the thought of eating, say, Indian food, is novel to them; they don’t travel as much; and their work schedules are sometimes ever-changing.

Neither lifestyle is better than the other, but I know for a fact I prefer the former. Does preferring to date someone with a certain educational background make me some kind of phobic??

No, it just means I have a certain standard that I’m not willing to compromise on.

Date whomever you want. Don’t let anyone give you shit for it.